I think its a good analogy. Oil and bandwidth are intrinsically very similar with regards to the risk / regulation dynamic in a commercial enterprise that buil

I think its a good analogy. Oil and bandwidth are intrinsically very similar with regards to the risk / regulation dynamic in a commercial enterprise that builds private infrastructure to the masses. Oil companies had to make large investments and take huge risks to explore, drill for oil, build a distribution system, etc. Similarly, ATT, Comcast and Vodafone had to take risks to lay down the pipes for a robust communication infrastructure. Bandwidth is not as scarce as, say, Oil, but still at any given time there is a limited amount, and an incremental cost associated with building infrastructure for more. The problem in both scenarios is that there is an inherent conflict of interest when these bets pay off. At the point where every single member of a society relies on a particular infrastructure to maintain quality of life, it suddenly becomes more important to make certain this infrastructure is available than for the company to make a large profit. I thought this context was implicit in the article. I think what the author is saying is, because of this dynamic, we the consumers need to be aware and take measures to protect our own self-interest as this dynamic plays out once again (so ATT does not become the cash machine that Exxon is.. at our expense). The "oil addiction" analogy sort of dumbs this down, but that's cool with me because as a result the author is reaching a larger audience that more cerebral arguments could not touch.